引产期间限制输液与自由输液的双盲随机对照研究:试点研究。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Darren J Lowen, Marina Meikhail, Ekaterina Jovic, Nicole Sheridan, Mark Tacey, Andrew Bisits, Russell Hodgson
{"title":"引产期间限制输液与自由输液的双盲随机对照研究:试点研究。","authors":"Darren J Lowen, Marina Meikhail, Ekaterina Jovic, Nicole Sheridan, Mark Tacey, Andrew Bisits, Russell Hodgson","doi":"10.1111/ajo.13841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Excess intravenous fluid for women requiring an induction of labour may adversely affect the duration of labour and maternal/neonatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aimed to determine the difference in duration of labour and outcomes with a low background infusion rate, compared to liberal background intravenous fluid management.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A double blind randomised controlled pilot study was performed on 200 women who underwent induction of labour at a single institution. Women were randomised to an intravenous rate of 40 mL/h versus 250 mL/h of Hartmann's solution. Fluid boluses were strictly controlled to limit bias. This trial was registered with the Australian clinical trial registry: ACTRN12621001298808.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of the total amount of fluid received showed good separation with Group 1 (40 mL/h) receiving 1,736 mL less than Group 2 (250 mL/h), median (interquartile range) 841 mL (458, 1691) versus 2,577 mL (1620, 4326) (P < 0.001). Median duration of labour was shorter in Group 1 by 24 min (P = ns). Subset analysis of nulliparous women showed that duration of labour was shorter in Group 1 by 83.5 min (P = ns).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As this was a pilot study, a significant difference in duration of labour or secondary outcomes was not seen. Given the increasing numbers of nulliparous women having an induction of labour, potential for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes and the associated higher rate of operative birth, this study guides power calculations and supports proof of concept for future research into optimum fluid management during induction of labour for these women.</p>","PeriodicalId":55429,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A double-blinded randomised controlled study of fluid restriction versus liberal fluid during induction of labour: A pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"Darren J Lowen, Marina Meikhail, Ekaterina Jovic, Nicole Sheridan, Mark Tacey, Andrew Bisits, Russell Hodgson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajo.13841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Excess intravenous fluid for women requiring an induction of labour may adversely affect the duration of labour and maternal/neonatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aimed to determine the difference in duration of labour and outcomes with a low background infusion rate, compared to liberal background intravenous fluid management.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A double blind randomised controlled pilot study was performed on 200 women who underwent induction of labour at a single institution. Women were randomised to an intravenous rate of 40 mL/h versus 250 mL/h of Hartmann's solution. Fluid boluses were strictly controlled to limit bias. This trial was registered with the Australian clinical trial registry: ACTRN12621001298808.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of the total amount of fluid received showed good separation with Group 1 (40 mL/h) receiving 1,736 mL less than Group 2 (250 mL/h), median (interquartile range) 841 mL (458, 1691) versus 2,577 mL (1620, 4326) (P < 0.001). Median duration of labour was shorter in Group 1 by 24 min (P = ns). Subset analysis of nulliparous women showed that duration of labour was shorter in Group 1 by 83.5 min (P = ns).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As this was a pilot study, a significant difference in duration of labour or secondary outcomes was not seen. Given the increasing numbers of nulliparous women having an induction of labour, potential for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes and the associated higher rate of operative birth, this study guides power calculations and supports proof of concept for future research into optimum fluid management during induction of labour for these women.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13841\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13841","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:本研究旨在确定低背景输液率与宽松的背景静脉输液管理相比,在产程持续时间和预后方面的差异:一项双盲随机对照试验研究在一家医疗机构对 200 名接受引产的产妇进行了研究。产妇被随机分配到哈特曼溶液 40 毫升/小时和 250 毫升/小时的静脉输液率。为限制偏差,对液量进行了严格控制。该试验已在澳大利亚临床试验注册中心注册:ACTRN12621001298808.Results:结果:对接受的液体总量进行的分析表明,第 1 组(40 毫升/小时)比第 2 组(250 毫升/小时)少接受 1736 毫升,中位数(四分位数间距)为 841 毫升(458,1691)对 2577 毫升(1620,4326)(P 结论:第 1 组(40 毫升/小时)比第 2 组(250 毫升/小时)少接受 1736 毫升:由于这是一项试验性研究,因此在产程或次要结果方面未发现明显差异。考虑到越来越多的无阴道产妇需要进行引产,产妇和新生儿可能会出现不良后果,而且手术分娩率也会随之升高,本研究为今后研究这些产妇引产期间的最佳液体管理提供了功率计算指导,并支持概念验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A double-blinded randomised controlled study of fluid restriction versus liberal fluid during induction of labour: A pilot study.

Background: Excess intravenous fluid for women requiring an induction of labour may adversely affect the duration of labour and maternal/neonatal outcomes.

Aims: This study aimed to determine the difference in duration of labour and outcomes with a low background infusion rate, compared to liberal background intravenous fluid management.

Materials and methods: A double blind randomised controlled pilot study was performed on 200 women who underwent induction of labour at a single institution. Women were randomised to an intravenous rate of 40 mL/h versus 250 mL/h of Hartmann's solution. Fluid boluses were strictly controlled to limit bias. This trial was registered with the Australian clinical trial registry: ACTRN12621001298808.

Results: Analysis of the total amount of fluid received showed good separation with Group 1 (40 mL/h) receiving 1,736 mL less than Group 2 (250 mL/h), median (interquartile range) 841 mL (458, 1691) versus 2,577 mL (1620, 4326) (P < 0.001). Median duration of labour was shorter in Group 1 by 24 min (P = ns). Subset analysis of nulliparous women showed that duration of labour was shorter in Group 1 by 83.5 min (P = ns).

Conclusion: As this was a pilot study, a significant difference in duration of labour or secondary outcomes was not seen. Given the increasing numbers of nulliparous women having an induction of labour, potential for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes and the associated higher rate of operative birth, this study guides power calculations and supports proof of concept for future research into optimum fluid management during induction of labour for these women.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
165
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ANZJOG) is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) and the RANZCOG Research foundation. ANZJOG aims to provide a medium for the publication of original contributions to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of obstetrics and gynaecology and related disciplines. Articles are peer reviewed by clinicians or researchers expert in the field of the submitted work. From time to time the journal will also publish printed abstracts from the RANZCOG Annual Scientific Meeting and meetings of relevant special interest groups, where the accepted abstracts have undergone the journals peer review acceptance process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信